Coming up on 10 years with my lightweight application Class Viewer on SourceForge, I've put out a request for feedback with no response at the time of the writing of this post. But that's NOT a surprise. I have almost ten years of experience with this project and over that entire time period I have almost no feedback beyond downloads. Which isn't terrible. It's GREAT to be downloaded.
But it occurs to me that I should try things to see if it might not entice people to talk about their use of the project--assuming it's being used after being downloaded--by talking more about the design philosopy around it.
So, for instance, it's deliberately small and lightweight. I like little apps.
Years ago when I was developing I got frustrated with development tools that took forever, in my opinion, just to load for me to do something simple, like get some info. Also I got hostile towards IDE's that suggested methods to me! I considered it cheeky.
I pick my methods. I don't like some tool pushing a method at me.
The project is also stateless, deliberately, so that every time you open it, you have a clean slate. I even made that emphatic by giving you a lot of blank screen when it loads versus some "splash". I don't like splash with apps.
So there is a LOT of my possibly peculiar philosophy in my application. And it will be 10 years in February where I've stuck to it.
Also along with the above is the principle, only just enough!
I don't like feature creep.
In addition I think that needing a lot of documentation for simple application probably means you have a design problem. That's just my opinion.
However, I think it kind of ironic as mobile devices begin to really take over that my approach is probably better.
Who wants to have to read a book before they can really use their smartphone? Do you really wish to need to take a course before you can get your tablet really working really well?
Oh yeah, and back in February 2004 when I put Class Viewer up on SourceForge, I was giving the world a web enabled app that didn't care if it was working on the desktop, or as an applet.
To me THAT more than anything else IS the future, when applications will be web enabled, web active, web-centric, or useful completely off the web.
(Should add that applet functionality is mostly gone now until and unless I address things like security certificates and security settings. So yes, I am aware of this issue. I really don't like how Java does security. I think it needs to be entirely re-done from the bottom up. But what does my opinion matter?)
So why so little user feedback with so much in the process?
Maybe because I never really explained.
Next month marks ten years of my Class Viewer for Java.
If you've used the application during that time, hey, do me a favor! Tell me something.
I'm curious to know if any of the above resonates.
Did the app appeal to people with similar notions about software development?
What do you think? Will the web take over with applications blurring the line between the desktop and, um, what else is there? I guess browser?
If you ponder the dominance of an idea, consider the dominance of a name.
With so little feedback I will admit I've tried to keep my spirits up, with things like, web searches.
But what does it really mean?
Search on any web search engine: Class Viewer
How'd I do? An inquiring mind wants to know.
James Harris
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Saturday, November 30, 2013
What value news analysis?
As much as news organizations are fighting with the issue of revenue, along with plenty of others trying to figure out how to make money in our modern web age, I think it fascinating to ponder how news makes sense.
For instance, in our modern world, news travels fast.
And as a baseline I'm going to use the 2012 election year in the United States to make some points. For instance, how long did it take for results to travel? And did we have to have news agencies do it?
Reality is that when it comes to important news which matters to a lot of people they will spread it fast, and while I'm sure lots of people got their results about elections outcomes directly from some news organizations, others may have heard it, like, even shouted at them excitedly by someone else avidly watching.
Doesn't take much to say, this person or that person won or lost, right?
So why should we pay for it?
But what about the 'why' of the news?
Trying to explain the why of events, unlike reporting itself, is a thing called news analysis!
Twitter lets you embed tweets which is something I've found could be useful, and it has relevance here as I have an opinion, which I voiced on election night. Here it is:
So there is this record of my opinion, with a date and timestamp, where looking at it now (and how else would I have remembered as I didn't care a lot at the time), which shows I put that tweet out November 6, 2012, at 5:44 PM PST. And I just favorited it. I favorite my own tweets to keep up with, yup, my favorites, like this one.
That is not news--it is news analysis. And it's JUST an opinion, which happens to be mine.
Is it true? I don't know.
However, unlike the news itself which travels rapidly, news analysis has a value which does not evaporate over time!
Isn't that weird? If I'm correct, then it still matters today, maybe even more than it did back then, as there are more elections coming up!
But who knows?
Time will tell.
When I look over the world of media outlets I am impressed not so much with breaking news--even though it still has a LOT of value but that value fades quickly as the news progresses--but with analysis, which is the key differentiator in my opinion.
And news analysis-- unlike breaking news--gains value over time if correct!
That's where the money is, in my opinion.
James Harris
For instance, in our modern world, news travels fast.
And as a baseline I'm going to use the 2012 election year in the United States to make some points. For instance, how long did it take for results to travel? And did we have to have news agencies do it?
Reality is that when it comes to important news which matters to a lot of people they will spread it fast, and while I'm sure lots of people got their results about elections outcomes directly from some news organizations, others may have heard it, like, even shouted at them excitedly by someone else avidly watching.
Doesn't take much to say, this person or that person won or lost, right?
So why should we pay for it?
But what about the 'why' of the news?
Trying to explain the why of events, unlike reporting itself, is a thing called news analysis!
Twitter lets you embed tweets which is something I've found could be useful, and it has relevance here as I have an opinion, which I voiced on election night. Here it is:
Looks like this election is about 'demographics rule' and the steep decline of the overwhelming dominance of Big Money in American politics.
— James Harris (@jstevh) November 7, 2012
So there is this record of my opinion, with a date and timestamp, where looking at it now (and how else would I have remembered as I didn't care a lot at the time), which shows I put that tweet out November 6, 2012, at 5:44 PM PST. And I just favorited it. I favorite my own tweets to keep up with, yup, my favorites, like this one.
That is not news--it is news analysis. And it's JUST an opinion, which happens to be mine.
Is it true? I don't know.
However, unlike the news itself which travels rapidly, news analysis has a value which does not evaporate over time!
Isn't that weird? If I'm correct, then it still matters today, maybe even more than it did back then, as there are more elections coming up!
But who knows?
Time will tell.
When I look over the world of media outlets I am impressed not so much with breaking news--even though it still has a LOT of value but that value fades quickly as the news progresses--but with analysis, which is the key differentiator in my opinion.
And news analysis-- unlike breaking news--gains value over time if correct!
That's where the money is, in my opinion.
James Harris
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Why not problem solve health insurance?
Growing up I was fascinated by the fictional character Spock on Star Trek. His obsession with logic fascinated me, and lead me to the library where I was disappointed by the reality of how logic is taught. Nonetheless I have remained interested in the subject and with problem solving as well, so I find it weird when I come across relatively simple analysis in big areas, where logic dictates.
Like health insurance is a major issue and in the US it has been problematic to properly provide it for our citizenry for quite some time. So I sat down some years back and analyzed the problem space and came to some simple conclusions.
And I concluded that if you boil down all the debate in the US around health insurance it is just about who pays.
The way insurance is supposed to work is you insure against risk by pooling funds in advance of it.
If a person is sick then they have already incurred risk.
It's like, if you already wrecked your car then you can't exactly insure it, correct?
But what if a wealthy uncle pays for your car to be fixed anyway? Well that's not insurance, it's charity.
So it's impossible from the business side to "insure" people when you are actually giving them charity if they are already sick. But from society's perspective it's important to give them that benefit, and insurance companies are the best at delivering payment on claims as it's their business.
But they don't have to be the ones actually paying.
For instance a wealthy person can hire an insurance company to administer claims made against him, even though he is actually paying out, because he lacks the experience to process the claim.
For instance, his chauffeur might run his vehicle into the back end of someone's car. Should he hire lawyers himself and fight the case in court?
What if instead his insurance company handles it, and determines that the accident was engineered because they've seen such things many times before? And they also determine that the supposedly injured party is in the database as someone who has been in many such accidents and is merely a con artist?
How would the wealthy person know on his own without the insurance company's help? He might get lucky and figure it out. And hire attorneys who could figure it out, and properly fight the case or he could end up taken as he does not have that kind of information and why would he? For instance, he couldn't have a database of insurance claims to search on to find the name of the person who had engineered such accidents in the past!
How does all of the above relate to health insurance?
Well, what if? What if the US Government or some other government entity paid for people who aren't really insurable, but the health insurance companies administer? Just like with the wealthy person example above you get the benefits of their expertise but someone else actually pays.
Years ago I put it all together in a tweet of exactly 140 characters:
Part of the way I use Twitter is to store ideas. And now it's easy to put them back up later by embedding the tweets, which I think is an efficient way to propagate the information.
If that tweet doesn't make sense you can read it all explained on one of my blogs:
lostincomment.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-healthcare-plan.html
I've explained in various ways since then, but I like showing how long I've had this approach out there.
I feel confident that eventually something like it will be the way health insurance will work in the US, but getting there will take some time.
Why? Because unlike the fictional Spock, who loved logic, politicians tend to love other things. As things play out in the US along a predictable path, it will take some time before people get frustrated enough with how things are done to do them better.
James Harris
Like health insurance is a major issue and in the US it has been problematic to properly provide it for our citizenry for quite some time. So I sat down some years back and analyzed the problem space and came to some simple conclusions.
And I concluded that if you boil down all the debate in the US around health insurance it is just about who pays.
The way insurance is supposed to work is you insure against risk by pooling funds in advance of it.
If a person is sick then they have already incurred risk.
It's like, if you already wrecked your car then you can't exactly insure it, correct?
But what if a wealthy uncle pays for your car to be fixed anyway? Well that's not insurance, it's charity.
So it's impossible from the business side to "insure" people when you are actually giving them charity if they are already sick. But from society's perspective it's important to give them that benefit, and insurance companies are the best at delivering payment on claims as it's their business.
But they don't have to be the ones actually paying.
For instance a wealthy person can hire an insurance company to administer claims made against him, even though he is actually paying out, because he lacks the experience to process the claim.
For instance, his chauffeur might run his vehicle into the back end of someone's car. Should he hire lawyers himself and fight the case in court?
What if instead his insurance company handles it, and determines that the accident was engineered because they've seen such things many times before? And they also determine that the supposedly injured party is in the database as someone who has been in many such accidents and is merely a con artist?
How would the wealthy person know on his own without the insurance company's help? He might get lucky and figure it out. And hire attorneys who could figure it out, and properly fight the case or he could end up taken as he does not have that kind of information and why would he? For instance, he couldn't have a database of insurance claims to search on to find the name of the person who had engineered such accidents in the past!
How does all of the above relate to health insurance?
Well, what if? What if the US Government or some other government entity paid for people who aren't really insurable, but the health insurance companies administer? Just like with the wealthy person example above you get the benefits of their expertise but someone else actually pays.
Years ago I put it all together in a tweet of exactly 140 characters:
My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end
— James Harris (@jstevh) July 27, 2009
Part of the way I use Twitter is to store ideas. And now it's easy to put them back up later by embedding the tweets, which I think is an efficient way to propagate the information.
If that tweet doesn't make sense you can read it all explained on one of my blogs:
lostincomment.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-healthcare-plan.html
I've explained in various ways since then, but I like showing how long I've had this approach out there.
I feel confident that eventually something like it will be the way health insurance will work in the US, but getting there will take some time.
Why? Because unlike the fictional Spock, who loved logic, politicians tend to love other things. As things play out in the US along a predictable path, it will take some time before people get frustrated enough with how things are done to do them better.
James Harris
Saturday, October 05, 2013
My concept of the Infi
A few years ago I started mumbling to myself about the Infi--the INFormation warrIor.
Totally a knock-off from the Jedi from George Lucas, of course. And such a fun idea.
Mostly I've tweeted about it, but thought, why not put something on one of my blogs too?
The idea is that today you have these people who operate in cyberspace as individuals who can really shift things, so it's like real-life Jedi but their powers are not about the physical so much as about wielding information through the modern web. So I call them Infi.
Like Julian Assange would definitely qualify I'd think as an Infi with this concept. And so would PFC Manning, and Eric Snowden.
So are they good or dark adepts?
No point in asking the current Executive Branch of the US Government which may wish to think one thing, but unfortunately there are times it can seem to be like the evil Empire of Star Wars, remarkably enough. Change from such behavior would be a good thing.
Actually it's very weird how much our modern world can be paralleled with the vision of George Lucas, where you may note there were senators and dark political intrigues.
The Jedi moved through this world as remarkable individuals able to change things on a galactic scale.
Today there are individuals who can stand against entire nations, thanks to the power of the web, who live a life that is so far definitely rivaling fiction and even inspiring it.
Possibly we are moving into a different world, with the rise of the Infi.
Here's a tweet I made a couple of years ago:
If so, I suspect it will make the imaginations of even the greats like George Lucas seem not quite up the task of a world where speed, information, and change can happen in battles in cyberspace that can engulf a world, where many people are barely even aware of them.
But their lives are changed regardless.
Here is one of my favorite tweets from me playing around with the idea. I don't take it too seriously. But at one time I thought I would be a science fiction writer but now mostly just muse about things on my blogs.
Still that urge to be dramatic is still there:
To a better world.
And, again, I'm not taking it all too seriously. I'm just a guy who loves to play with ideas. And my concept of the Infi is just one of the fun ones.
James Harris
Totally a knock-off from the Jedi from George Lucas, of course. And such a fun idea.
Mostly I've tweeted about it, but thought, why not put something on one of my blogs too?
The idea is that today you have these people who operate in cyberspace as individuals who can really shift things, so it's like real-life Jedi but their powers are not about the physical so much as about wielding information through the modern web. So I call them Infi.
Like Julian Assange would definitely qualify I'd think as an Infi with this concept. And so would PFC Manning, and Eric Snowden.
So are they good or dark adepts?
No point in asking the current Executive Branch of the US Government which may wish to think one thing, but unfortunately there are times it can seem to be like the evil Empire of Star Wars, remarkably enough. Change from such behavior would be a good thing.
Actually it's very weird how much our modern world can be paralleled with the vision of George Lucas, where you may note there were senators and dark political intrigues.
The Jedi moved through this world as remarkable individuals able to change things on a galactic scale.
Today there are individuals who can stand against entire nations, thanks to the power of the web, who live a life that is so far definitely rivaling fiction and even inspiring it.
Possibly we are moving into a different world, with the rise of the Infi.
Here's a tweet I made a couple of years ago:
the age of the infi is only just starting to emerge.
— James Harris (@jstevh) March 12, 2011
If so, I suspect it will make the imaginations of even the greats like George Lucas seem not quite up the task of a world where speed, information, and change can happen in battles in cyberspace that can engulf a world, where many people are barely even aware of them.
But their lives are changed regardless.
Here is one of my favorite tweets from me playing around with the idea. I don't take it too seriously. But at one time I thought I would be a science fiction writer but now mostly just muse about things on my blogs.
Still that urge to be dramatic is still there:
Code of the infi. We are the code. Our power is mind. Our way is the Order.
— James Harris (@jstevh) May 29, 2012
To a better world.
And, again, I'm not taking it all too seriously. I'm just a guy who loves to play with ideas. And my concept of the Infi is just one of the fun ones.
James Harris
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Should Marvel go "Rogue"?
Having been a big comic book fan in the past I feel gratified by a lot of movie-making which has finally done the job needed for handling a fantasy reality where superpowers rule.
With that said it occurred to me that I have not seen a movie with the lead from one particular superhero who could, I think, handle the massive weight of a major motion picture all on her super-powered shoulders and that is Rogue.
Movies with female leads have been showing their box office clout, while Wolverine has shown that there is still room for other often singleton superheroes along with the perennial favorite Spiderman.
As a female lead superhero few are in the range of Rogue.
So should Marvel--or someone who has the insight and power--go a movie about Rogue?
(Assumed they have the rights to do so, and finally stumbled across indications they do not. Shows what I know about licensing issues around these characters which is admittedly not much! Will leave the post up though as, why not?)
I think they should.
Rogue can hang with the best of them at her maximum, while she has the vulnerability in character and in her story that can make her appealing to a wide audience. She can not only fly, punch, and hurl cars with the best of them, but she also has to deal with her root ability to steal superpower or memories or life energy.
Of course modern movies are massive investments, but hey, it's the web so I can express my opinion. And maybe some people with clout have already realized the above and there is something in the works.
If so, great thanking you unknown people who help bring the Marvel Universe to life on the big screen!!!
You continue to impress me.
If not?
Go Rogue.
And give us more. And it better be great. Her character deserves nothing less.
I am a HUGE fan of the Rogue character. I am certain there is a lot of strength and power there which is the raw material needed. Getting it right is the job of others.
There are few if any minor heroes in the Marvel Universe.
There may be too many writers and directors not up to the challenge.
Get the best, and make them deliver.
Thank you for your time and attention. And, um, that's it.
James Harris
With that said it occurred to me that I have not seen a movie with the lead from one particular superhero who could, I think, handle the massive weight of a major motion picture all on her super-powered shoulders and that is Rogue.
Movies with female leads have been showing their box office clout, while Wolverine has shown that there is still room for other often singleton superheroes along with the perennial favorite Spiderman.
As a female lead superhero few are in the range of Rogue.
So should Marvel--or someone who has the insight and power--go a movie about Rogue?
(Assumed they have the rights to do so, and finally stumbled across indications they do not. Shows what I know about licensing issues around these characters which is admittedly not much! Will leave the post up though as, why not?)
I think they should.
Rogue can hang with the best of them at her maximum, while she has the vulnerability in character and in her story that can make her appealing to a wide audience. She can not only fly, punch, and hurl cars with the best of them, but she also has to deal with her root ability to steal superpower or memories or life energy.
Of course modern movies are massive investments, but hey, it's the web so I can express my opinion. And maybe some people with clout have already realized the above and there is something in the works.
If so, great thanking you unknown people who help bring the Marvel Universe to life on the big screen!!!
You continue to impress me.
If not?
Go Rogue.
And give us more. And it better be great. Her character deserves nothing less.
I am a HUGE fan of the Rogue character. I am certain there is a lot of strength and power there which is the raw material needed. Getting it right is the job of others.
There are few if any minor heroes in the Marvel Universe.
There may be too many writers and directors not up to the challenge.
Get the best, and make them deliver.
Thank you for your time and attention. And, um, that's it.
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)